The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

If you have a crop sensor camera and have (for example) a DX 18-200mm lens attched, you have the equivalent of a 27-300mm field of view (1.5 factor).

If you were to attach an 28-300 FX lens to a crop sensor camera, would the field of view just be 28-300m?

JimEaco

Good Question:

Hope I do not further confuse you;
Using an FX Lens on a DX body produces [the perception of magnification, which is really only] an in camera crop.

If the same lens is used on an FX body at the same zoom ratio (Focal length) you will get a wider view.

In other words: the FX body is using the entire lens, the DX Body is using the center of the lens.

Leitz Loc: Solms

A 28~300 FX lens on a DX camera would be the equivalent of 42~450mm on an FX camera.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Oops!

JimEaco

and... a DX Lens on an FX Body will also have the same 1.5 magnification: although seldom discussed or considered.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

are you sure?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

You are saying it is the lens and not the sensor that is doing the cropping/magnification?

FYI:

http://www.scantips.com/lights/cropfactor.html

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I would think that it would be the lens. The senor stays the same, its just the way that the "lens affects it?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

See how they look with your own eyes and the Nikon Lens Simulator.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Leitz Loc: Solms

It is obvious to me, at least, that you are saying a DX lens on an FX camera will yield the same size image as it would on a DX camera.

Edit: You are correct.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Not so... put an FX lens on a DX camera, the crop factor remains the same.... a 50mm FX lens will equal the view of a 75mm lens. Put that 50 mm lens on an FX camera and the view is the 50mm...

The lenses project a big circular image onto the camera sensor, and there is quite a bit of overflow. The size of the sensor determine the view.

The image at the top of the web page I posted displays what the image looks like, and what the sensor sees.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Hmmm... to me that is NOT what was inferred...

I would agree that the image size would be the same....

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

Using the simulaor, the 300mm FX zooms in somewhat further then the 200mm DX at the 300 equivalent.

JimEaco

We can split words; agree to disagree...
The FX/DX and "Crop Factor" has always seemed a misleading marketing thing to me and I spent a ton of time trying to wrap my head around it.

A DX Sensor is smaller. it uses the middle of an FX lens and all of a DX lens.
An FX sensor is larger it uses all of the FX lens and all of the DX lens, however it (the FX sensor/body) auto adjusts to DX sensor... (uses the DX equivalent/center) of the sensor.

To me... the crop is perfectly clear. The magnification (Crop factor) is not so much that the sensor made the lens a single millimeter longer... it is simply that the smaller captured image has to be enlarged 1.5 times to fill the same print area.

I contend; you are not gaining focal length you are enlarging the captured image more which produces the perception of a longer lens.
have you ever heard the terms Optical Zoom and Electronic Zoom? (also called in-camera zoom, and a few other catchy terms)

It will be difficult for anyone to convince me that a lens gets longer through the process of enlargement of the image.
The focal length of the lens is constant regardless of the sensor, the difference occurs when the image is output/viewed.

Consider it a fact: that when you enlarge a photo on your computer screen, and crop it, the lens in the photographers bag does not magically become longer.
[LOL] Pixel stretching does not and never will effect focal length.

I am anxious to read the arguments that prove a DX Sensor impacts the focal length of any lens: DX or FX.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Probably because I often do not express myself as well as might be desired, I sometimes hesitate to take everything someone else says too literally. Every once in a while, I get lucky. :)